| > I definitely can't do that at this stage. I have never liked
| > Float/Double/Ratio being in Enum, but there is no possibility of
| > removing them now. A year or two ago, maybe.
|
| Just to clarify: Did you mean for Haskell 98 or did you mean forever?
Thanks for raising that
I def
|
| It's inconsistent to remove the "+1/2" for numericEnumFromTo but to
leave
| the "+(n'-n)" for numericEnumFromThenTo. I think you probably mean to
| remove both (actually, all three).
|
| I wouldn't recommend these changes for Float and Double (the
increments
| are there to account for arit
G'day all.
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 04:05:05PM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> I definitely can't do that at this stage. I have never liked
> Float/Double/Ratio being in Enum, but there is no possibility of
> removing them now. A year or two ago, maybe.
Just to clarify: Did you mean for Hask
Dean Herington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's inconsistent to remove the "+1/2" for
> numericEnumFromTo but to leave the "+(n'-n)" for
> numericEnumFromThenTo. I think you probably mean to
> remove both (actually, all three).
You are right, what I meant is
numericEnumFromTo n m = takeWhile
| Since I suppose you also want to receive constructive suggestions,
| I'd suggest to remove some instance definitions from the
| report.
I definitely can't do that at this stage. I have never liked
Float/Double/Ratio being in Enum, but there is no possibility of
removing them now. A year or tw
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> Folks
>
> The concrete is setting fast, but Ross points out that the instance for
> Enum (Ratio a) is inconsistent with that for Enum Float and Enum Double.
> (It's strange that these non-integral types are in Enum, but we're stuck
> with that.)
>
> All three use 'numer
Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> "Simon Peyton-Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So I propose to modify the instance decl for Ratio by
> > adding explicit defns for succ/pred just like those in
> > Float/Double.
>
> I bet you guessed: once at it, what about removing those
> unintuitive 1/2-s, like:
>
Hi Haskellers,
Simon> Any objections?
frankly speaking, yes.
The intellectual meaning of a successor in a non-integral type
is not clear for me. Can anyone explain it?
I observed this report discussion for quite a long time and
maybe have found the deep reason behind the problems. It app
"Simon Peyton-Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So I propose to modify the instance decl for Ratio by
> adding explicit defns for succ/pred just like those in
> Float/Double.
I bet you guessed: once at it, what about removing those
unintuitive 1/2-s, like:
numericEnumFromTo n m = takeWhile (<
Folks
The concrete is setting fast, but Ross points out that the instance for
Enum (Ratio a) is inconsistent with that for Enum Float and Enum Double.
(It's strange that these non-integral types are in Enum, but we're stuck
with that.)
All three use 'numericEnumFrom' etc for the enumFrom method,
10 matches
Mail list logo
